sign in sign up
<<
Home , Giraffe, Magdalenian, Mureybet, Tell Abu Hureyra, Wild boar

in the symbolic world of Pre- Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern : a preliminary assessment

Joris PETERS Institut für Paläoanatomie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Kaulbachstraße 37, D-80539 München (Germany) [email protected]

Klaus SCHMIDT Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Podbielskiallee 69-71, D-14195 Berlin (Germany) [email protected]

Peters J. & Schmidt K. 2004. – Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1) : 179-218.

ABSTRACT The recently discovered Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe (SE- Turkey) is unparalleled in its architecture and art. The latter is particularly rich in depictions — stone figurines, and megalithic pillars decorated with bas-reliefs — and illustrates the prominent role animals played in the spiritual world of PPN groups frequenting the site. Up to now, ten taxa could be identified, nine of which also appeared in the archaeofaunal record of the site. Discussion focussed upon the possible role of the animal figured at Göbekli Tepe, in particular whether the space demarcated by the pillars could have witnessed the performance of KEY WORDS Turkey, rituals, initiation and passage rites, spiritual encounters funeral SE , practices. In view of our limited knowledge about the role animals played in , the symbolic world of the PPN, in particular with respect to the logic and PPNA, animal symbolism, metaphysics governing the choice of species, the question of what purpose the archaeofauna. enclosures served will take much more time to be properly answered.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 179 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

RÉSUMÉ Les animaux dans le monde symbolique du PPNB de Göbekli Tepe, Turquie du Sud-Est : première évaluation. Le site néolithique PPNB de Göbekli Tepe (Sud-Est de la Turquie), récem- ment mis au jour, présente une architecture et un art sans pareils. L’art est particulièrement riche en représentations animales — figurines en pierre, sculptures et piliers mégalithiques décorées en bas-relief — et montre le rôle important joué par les animaux dans le monde spirituel de groupes humains PPN fréquentant le site. Jusqu’ici dix taxons de vertébrés ont été identifiés, dont neuf sont aussi présents dans l’archéofaune du site. Le débat porte sur le rôle éventuel des espèces animales figurées à Göbekli Tepe, en particulier à savoir si l’espace démarqué par les piliers a pu être témoin de rituels de chasse, MOTS CLÉS Turquie, d’initiation et rites de passage, de rencontres spirituelles ou de pratiques Anatolie du Sud-Est, funèbres. Étant donné notre connaissance limitée concernant le rôle joué par art mégalithique, les animaux dans le monde symbolique du PPN, en particulier par rapport à PPNA, symbolisme animal, la logique et à la métaphysique gouvernant le choix des espèces, il faudra du archéofaune. temps pour résoudre la question relative à la fonction des enclos.

INTRODUCTION specialised workshop areas as as by the gro- wing importance given to open courtyards as The transformation from a (semi-)mobile hun- communal space (Cauvin 1977, 1997; ter-forager way of life into the highly productive Hauptmann 1993; Rosenberg et al. 1995; and successful system of crop- farming Özdogan˘ and Özdogan˘ 1998; Schmidt 1998a, b, was a lengthy and complex process, triggered, 2000; Stordeur 1999, 2000). among other things, by the establishment of Since 1995, members of the Museum of (semi-)sedentary communities, a move that Șanlıurfa and the German Archaeological reflects the degree of control exerted by a human Institute (DAI) have been carrying out archaeolo- group over a particular and its resources gical research at the PPN site of Göbekli Tepe. (Cauvin 1979, 1997; -Yosef 2000). In the Located on top of a hill (c. 800 m asl), the site northern , the appearance of such is unique because of its impressive architecture communities dates to the 11th millennium cal. and highly diverse yet unparalleled of objects BC. Based on the work at (Fig. 1) depicting animals, ranging from small stone and related sites by the late — to figurines through sculptures and statues of whom this contribution is dedicated —, it could animals to representations on (Beile- be demonstrated that in the following millennia, Bohn et al. 1998; Hauptmann 1999, 2002; the drainage area witnessed not only Hauptmann and Schmidt 2001; Schmidt 1995, considerable demographic growth but also an 1999, 2001, 2003; Schmidt and Hauptmann increase in socio-cultural complexity, as reflected 2003). Although the site is only partly excavated, by settlement size and architecture. Sites dating it is not unlikely that the finds from Göbekli to the (second half of the) 10th and the 9th mil- Tepe may contribute to our understanding of lennium cal. BC, e.g., Jerf el Ahmar, Dja’de, Tell the transition from a subsistence pattern based Cheikh Hassan, Çayönü Tepesi, Nevalı Çori, are upon hunting and foraging at the end of the characterised by spatial division of residential and to the appearance of and

180 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 1. – Map with location of major sites mentioned in the text.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 181 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

animal husbandry in the course of the Early to form round or oval enclosures. Excavations (Peters et al. in press). revealed the presence of four such structures, each In this contribution, we will focus on the site’s of them being delineated by a number of mono- animal iconography associated with the megali- liths positioned symmetrically. The latter, which thic architecture. An overview of the taxa depic- may number up to twelve (enclosure D), are ted will be presented and the information interconnected by stone benches or walls (Figs 3-5). compared with our present knowledge about the Two huge monoliths, the so-called twin pillars, PPN faunal record of the region. Discussion will dominate the centre of each enclosure (Figs 4; 5). centre on the possible meaning(s) of the site’s They are, as a rule, larger than the surrounding diverse but enigmatic iconography. pillars and of superior fabrication, i.e. their surfa- ce is extremely well prepared and they are always decorated. By the end of the 2002 excavation sea- THE PPN ENCLOSURES son, 37 pillars had been found in situ in Layer III, AND THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL 22 of which have animal decorations in relief. CONTENTS During the Neolithic and for reasons unknown to us, PPN settlement refuse was deliberately Architecture at Göbekli Tepe is distinctive dumped onto Göbekli Tepe’s megalithic archi- (Fig. 2), consisting of larger curvilinear (probably tecture which, as a result, was sealed and protec- PPNA) and smaller rectangular (late Early/early ted until its discovery in the mid-1990s. This Middle PPNB) structures with megaliths in the refuse (= Layer III) yielded an impressive amount form of T-shaped stone pillars (Beile-Bohn et al. of stone material, in particular flint reflec- 1998; Schmidt 1999, 2001). The monoliths ting a broad typological spectrum and waste pro- from the curvilinear structures stand 3 to 5 m ducts. Animal remains are also abundant (Table 1), high, weigh up to 10 tons and have been positio- whereas remains of plants, e.g., carbonised , ned in a symmetrical arrangement (Figs 3-5). pulses or wood, are extremely scarce. Based on The pillars from the overlying PPNB levels the of the deposits excavated and the typo- (= Layer II) are decidedly smaller in size, avera- logy of the lithic present, the “allochtho- ging about 1.5 m. Similar-sized monoliths were nous” filling material probably came from a first discovered at Early-Middle PPNB Nevalı late/final PPNA refuse dump. This is in accor- Çori (Fig. 6; Hauptmann 1993, 1999; Schmidt dance with two 14C-dates obtained on 1998a, b). However, whereas the outline of some remains from these deposits, i.e. 9559 ± 53 BP pillars at Nevalı Çori resembles the Greek letter (or 9163-8744 cal. BC – 2σ; Hd 20036) and Γ, typical Γ-shaped pillars have not been found at 9452 ± 73 BP (or 9136-8986 cal BC – 2σ;Hd Göbekli Tepe, though the horizontal part of a 20025) (Kromer and Schmidt 1998). pillar may occasionally exhibit a strong asymme- An approximate date for the burying of the try (Fig. 7). Of particular interest is the fact that megaliths comes from a PPNB soil (Layer II) on pillars at both sites, the vertical element some- overlying the filling (Layer III) of enclosure D. times shows a pair of arms and hands in bas-relief This soil has been dated to 8880 ± 60 BP (or (Figs 4; 6). The T-shaped pillars thus seem to 8240-7780 cal. BC 2σ; Pustovoytov pers. comm. represent stylised anthropomorphic beings, the 2003). Pedogenic carbonate coatings on wall horizontal and vertical parts respectively being stones of enclosures B and C produced somewhat the head and body. On the same monoliths, younger dates, i.e. 8960 ± 85 BP (c. 8300-7800 parallel have occasionally been noted, cal. BC 2σ; Ua 19562) and 8430 ± 80 BP and this decoration probably refers to human clo- (c. 7600-7200 cal. BC 2σ; Ua 19561; Pustovoytov thing. 2002, 2003), but this is not contradictory becau- As already mentioned, the T-shaped pillars disco- se carbonate coatings will only develop after soil vered in Layer III have been purposely arranged formation has taken place. All in all these 14C

182 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

TABLE 1. – Göbekli Tepe, Central area. Mammalian fauna. Göbekli Tepe suggests a PPNA age for the enclo- Excavations 1996-2001. sures A to D, it is even possible that the PPNA filling material comes from the sites where the NISP* Göbekli people once used to live. Long-eared , Hemiechinus As said, the pillars found in Layer II are decidedly auritus 5 smaller than those found in Layer III. Based on , Canis lupus 5 similar standing stones found at other sites, these Fox, mainly red fox, Vulpes vulpes 971 monoliths likely date to the PPNB. Until now, Weasel, Mustela nivalis 2 18 pillars have been found. Only two of them Marbled polecat, Vormela peregusna 1 exhibit animal representations, while one repre- Eurasian badger, Meles meles 1 sents the Nevalı Çori type with human arms and Wild cat, Felis silvestris 21 hands. , pardus 1 The post-Neolithic Layer I consists of accumula- Equid(s), mainly Asiatic wild ass, Equus hemionus 1177 tions resulting from natural erosion and sedimen- , Sus scrofa 863 tation processes due to agricultural practices in Red , elaphus 170 post-medieval times. Mesopotamian fallow deer, Cervus mesopotamica 3 , primigenius 2574 SYNOPSIS OF THE ANIMALS Goitred , Gazella subgutturosa 7949 REPRESENTED , orientalis 293 Ovis/, mainly (if not exclusively) Apart from some enigmatic symbols which recall mouflon 944 the found at Jerf el Ahmar (Helmer et European souslik, Spermophilus citellus 1 al. this vol.), representations on the T-shaped Grey hamster, Cricetulus migratorius 1 pillars essentially show animals in relief. They are Indian gerbil, Tatera indica 69 generally shown in toto in a (semi-)naturalistic Short-tailed bandicoot-rat, Nesokia indica 33 style. Occasionally we are dealing with bucrania Jird, Meriones sp. 1 or even more abstract depictions. Cape hare, Lepus capensis 386 At Göbekli Tepe, are the most common TOTAL IDENTIFIED MAMMALS 15471 motif (Table 2). These reptiles generally appear UNIDENTIFIED MAMMALS 23233 either single (Fig. 8, top), in small groups of

TOTAL MAMMALIAN REMAINS 38704 three, four or five individuals (P1, P30) or in groups of 12 and more animals moving parallel *NISP = Number of identified specimens. to each other so as to form a kind of wave pattern (Fig. 9, below the cranes). On one occasion, an individual with two heads, one at each end of the dates suggest that the filling of the megalithic body and looking in opposite directions, has been architecture took place in the 8th millennium cal. found (P30). The snakes depicted are thick, short BC at the latest. animals with flattened triangular heads (Fig. 10). Many important questions, however, cannot be Their shape corresponds to that observed in answered for the moment, e.g., why people deci- vipers. Several highly venomous vipers are known ded to abandon this architectural complex, or to occur in the Urfa region, the most common from where exactly within the site catchment the being the Levantine viper, Vipera lebetina. refuse covering the structures originated. No Representations of snakes are mainly located on doubt, given the enormous amount of “recycled” the small, frontal face of the pillars (Figs 10; 11). debris, the primary dump cannot have been too Only in two cases do we find representa- far away. Since the curvilinear architecture at tions on the back side of a pillar (P6 and P14,

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 183 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

both enclosure B), but it is possible that these phic twin pillar of enclosure D clearly indicates monoliths have been re-positioned. With few its important role in PPN symbolism. exceptions (P1, P33), the snakes move in a down- Besides foxes, other carnivores are represented at ward direction. Göbekli Tepe. The carnivore muzzle visible on To the depictions of snakes may be added an P22 (enclosure D) suggests that the iconography enigmatic relief found at the eastern (broad) face of layer III included large felines. A number of of P1. Based on the triangular form of its statues of large carnivores tentatively identified endings, the object depicted seem to represent a as felines may lend support to this assumption. kind of “net” made up of 17 snakes, 8 animals Some quadrupeds on limestone slabs possibly oriented upwards and 9 downwards (Fig. 12). represent felines (Helmer et al. this vol.). Interestingly, depictions of snakes are found in Unequivocal evidence for the presence of felines three enclosures (A, B, D) but are absent until (2 individuals) comes from Layer II pillars. now in enclosure C, where these reptiles seem to While the body proportions of these animals be replaced by wild boar. Six of seven reliefs of might suggest that we are dealing with , boars have been discovered here, including a lack of a mane as well as a tuft at the tail makes most beautiful specimen on P12 (Fig. 13). This an identification as leopard more likely. naturalistic representation shows a male indivi- , moreover, are found in other dual signalling its readiness to attack, its mouth Neolithic contexts of the northern Fertile opened in to display its impressive tusks. Crescent, e.g., at Çatal Hüyük (Mellaart 1967, The omnipresence of wild boar on the T-shaped 2003), (Clason 1999) and Tell ‘Abr pillars of enclosure C (Figs 13; 14) is paralleled (Helmer et al. this vol.). by other findings : Of the four wild boar sculp- Despite its incompleteness, the horizontal part of tures hitherto found, three have been discovered P11 probably suggests the presence of another in enclosure C, namely A25 (Fig. 15), A29 and large carnivore : From the proportions of the four A34 (Fig. 16), and one in enclosure A (A15). extremities, which clearly characterize the animal One limestone slab (C29) shows a wild boar in as heavy, and the fact that the paws present five an upside down position (Fig. 17). The slab had toes, it can be postulated that brown also been positioned upright in an area south of figured among the taxa depicted. enclosure C and probably formed part of a door On two occasions foxes occur together with frame. Interestingly, the alignment of the lime- wild . While the triad aurochs, fox and stone slabs recalls door frame constructions crane on P2 (Fig. 19) may reflect a sequence of known from megalithic burrows of later periods. symbols, the scene on P20 (Fig. 8) probably It is not clear whether the upside-down position illustrates a confrontation between a snake and of the animal resulted from the secondary use of an aurochs — the latter apparently “kneels the slab or whether this was done deliberately. If down” as if to “surrender” —, whereas the role the latter applies, the animal’s position might of the fox is unclear. On the small face of P2, a indicate a dead individual. bas-relief of a stylised aurochs bucranium has On P12 just below the wild boar is the head of a been found (Fig. 12). P31 probably reflects a fox flashing its teeth (Fig. 13). Foxes are another similar situation (Fig. 20). The “” above the common motif at Göbekli Tepe (Table 2). These bucranium could imply that in reality, these canids are depicted either single or in combina- items may have been fixed onto a ceiling or a tion with other species, for example with aurochs wall, a situation observed at Neolithic Çatal and crane (P2) or aurochs and snake (P1, P20), Hüyük (Mellaart 1967). Deposits of aurochs with a second fox (P20), or with another carnivo- bucrania are described from different PPN sites, re, probably a feline (P22). The presence of this e.g., Hallan Çemi Tepesi (Rosenberg et al. species on the twin pillars P9 and P10 in enclosu- 1995), Tell Halula (Saña Segui 1999) and Jerf el re B (Fig. 18) and on the eastern anthropomor- Ahmar (Helmer et al. this vol.).

184 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

TABLE 2. – Göbekli Tepe. Animal depictions on the T-shaped pillars in enclosures A to D. Caveat : enclosures A to D not completely excavated.

Taxon/Enclosure A B C D Total %

Snakes* 5 2 0 14+2 (25) 23 28.4 Fox12181214.8 Boar 006178.7 Crane 100456.2 Aurochs 100233.7 Wild sheep100122.5 Asiatic wild ass 000111.2 Gazelle 000111.2 Leopard/ 000111.2 0 0 1 ? 0 1 ? 1.2 Quadruped 010011.2 ** 2 0 1 12 15 18.6 Unidentified 0153911.1

TOTAL 11 6 14 48+2 (25) 81 100.0

* Sometimes a larger number of snakes (> 5) has been depicted in close association. This strong coherence suggests that we are dealing with a unity. For statistical reasons, we decided to count such associations only once, but added the real number of individuals depicted in brackets. ** Including the net-like object (snakes ?) and the three bucrania.

FIG. 2. – Göbekli Tepe. Excavation area. View from the south. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 185 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 3. – Göbekli Tepe. Schematic plan of excavated structures. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

186 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 4. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D. View from the north. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

FIG. 5. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure B – Twin pillars. View from the north. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 187 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 6. – Nevalı Çori. Decorated pillar from the terrazzo building. Drawing courtesy H. Hauptmann.

188 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 7. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P30. View from the west. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 189 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 8. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P20, with snake, aurochs and fox. View from the north. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

190 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 9. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P33, with two cranes, pictograms and lines representing snakes. View from the east. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 191 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 10. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P22, with snake. View from the west. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

192 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 11. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P30, with snakes, a quadruped (aurochs, Asiatic wild ass ?) and a pictogram. View from the south. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 193 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 12. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure A – P1, with net of « snakes”, and Wild , and P2 with Bos (?) bucranium. View from the east. Photograph Ch. Gerber. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

194 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 13. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure C – P12, with animals in landscape (?) (horizontal part), wild boar and fox (vertical part). View from the south. Photograph D. Johannes. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 195 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 14. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure C – P28, with two wild boars. View from the southwest. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

196 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 15. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure C. of a wild boar (A25), excavated near P12. Photograph K. Schmidt. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

FIG. 16. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure C. Incomplete sculpture of a wild boar (A34), excavated near P24. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 197 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 17. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure C – Entrance (?), with wild boar in an upside down position (C29). View from the south. Photograph K. Schmidt, © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

198 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 18. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure B–P10, with fox. View from the east. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 199 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 19. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure A – P2, with wild cattle, fox and crane. View from the west. Photograph Ch. Gerber. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

200 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 20. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P31, with Bos (?) bucranium. View from the south. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 201 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 21. – Göbekli Tepe. Enclosure D – P21, with goitred gazelle and Asiatic wild ass. View from the south. Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

202 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

FIG. 22. – Göbekli Tepe. Sculpture of an unidentified short-legged quadruped (A35). Photograph I. Wagner. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

FIG. 23. – Göbekli Tepe. Figurine of a vulture, collected from filling debris of layer II. Photograph D. Johannes. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 203 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

FIG. 24. – A, B. Göbekli Tepe. Ithyphallic protome (A2). Surface find.

204 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

Photograph M. Morsch. © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 205 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

Besides aurochs and wild boar, three other ungu- TABLE 3. – Göbekli Tepe, central area. Avi- and ichthyofauna. Excavations 1996-1998. late species have been depicted. Goitred gazelle is figured on P21 (Fig. 21). Asiatic wild ass can be NISP* recognised on P21 (Fig. 21) and probably also on P30. Wild sheep or mouflon may be depicted on Greylag goose, Anser anser 1 P1 (Fig. 12) and P33. Ruddy shelduck, Tadorna ferruginea 1 Representations of cranes are known in the Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos 1 Griffon vulture, Gyps fulvus 1 Neolithic iconography from Bouqras (Clason, Long-legged buzzard, Buteo rufinus 1 1989/90) and Çatal Hüyük (Mellaart 2003; for a , Aquila sp. 3 recent overview and interpretation see Russell & Chukar, Alectoris chukar 2 McGowan 2003). So far, three scenes involving Quail, Coturnix coturnix 1 five large birds which most probably represent , Grus grus 6 cranes have been discovered at Göbekli Tepe (P2, Demoiselle crane, Anthropoides virgo 2 P33, P38) (Figs 9; 19). , Otis tarda 7 Sandgrouse, Pterocles sp. 1 From the foregoing, it can be concluded that at Tawny owl, Strix aluco 1 least ten vertebrate taxa played a role in the sym- Song thrush, Turdus philomelos 2 bolic world of PPNA Göbekli Tepe. Unfortuna- Thrush, Turdus sp. 5 tely, many representations, although relatively Magpie, Pica pica 2 well preserved, are difficult to interpret taxono- , Corvus frugilegus 4 mically (Fig. 22). crow, Corvus corone 10 Jackdaw, Corvus monedula 8 Reed bunting, Emberiza schoeniclus 1 THE ARCHAEOFAUNA ASSOCIATED Total identified birds 60 WITH THE ENCLOSURES Unidentified birds 5 Total remains 65

One interpretation of the above list of species is that the space defined by the T-shaped pillars was Silurus triostegus 1 intended for the performance of hunting rituals. The question arises whether the bone material in Unident. Cyprinid 1 the fill between the monoliths originated from *NISP = Number of identified specimens. activities taking place within the boundaries of the enclosure itself, in other words whether the bones are leftovers from ritual activities, or whe- ther they come from other contexts. To answer ry nature of the deposits, it was decided to sieve this question, a closer look at the bone material is only part of the cultural debris. Within the ran- of crucial importance. domly selected archaeological units that have In a second step, a comparison of the faunal spec- been sieved systematically (1 mm mesh), taxono- trum presented by the bone refuse and the species mic composition did not differ much from that list taken from the depictions will be highlighted observed in neighbouring units from which ani- (see Animal symbolism and hunting rituals). mal remains had been collected essentially by The Layer III excavations at Göbekli Tepe pro- hand-picking, except for a higher relative fre- duced a rich faunal assemblage (von den Driesch quency of unidentified remains and an increased & Peters 2001; Peters et al. in press). Dating of percentage of bones of (very) small , the animal remains follows the lithic industry, i.e. e.g., Cape hare, and Passeriforme birds. late/final PPNA. Up to now, 42 vertebrate taxa Conceivably, not all of the latter resulted from — 20 mammals, 20 birds and 2 fish — could be anthropogenic activities, as some finds may recognised (Tables 1; 3). Because of the seconda- represent commensal species that lived and per-

206 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

ished near the site. Thus, hand-picking of bone far more abundant than cranial elements. This specimens from screens with a mesh of 5 mm cer- skeletal bias can be interpreted as evidence for the tainly caused a bias against small(er) vertebrates, exploitation of Vulpes for its pelt. Presumably not which therefore will be underrepresented in the all of the fox remains recovered from Layer III non-sieved samples. However, species composi- come from the refuse dump recycled to the tion does not seem to have been affected signifi- site’s PPNA architecture : fox pelts (as well as cantly by this procedure. gazelle hides) with the foot bones still attached — In all Level III units, mammalian bone fragments a common practice when preparing skins of form the bulk of the material. Remains of ungu- — may also have been used at the site itself, for lates predominate with over 80 % of the total example to cover and/or decorate floors, walls sample. This is also the case with other PPN and stone benches. archaeofaunas collected along the Upper and Though bone remains of birds are far less com- Middle Euphrates (Helmer et al. 1998; Peters et than those of mammals, taxonomic diversity al. 1999). At Göbekli Tepe, goitred gazelle must is similarly high. Bone fragments of members of have been very common (41.8 %). Other impor- the Corvidae (crows) form the bulk of the tant are wild cattle, Asiatic wild ass, material. The presence of migratory species, e.g., wild boar, and Cape hare. Caprine common crane (Grus grus) and demoiselle crane remains account for about 11 % of the sample, (Anthropoides virgo), implies seasonal hunting but among the specimens that could be identified activities at Göbekli Tepe. Diurnal birds of prey, to the species level, not a single find could be such as falcons, eagles, buzzards and kites, may attributed to the wild , Capra aegagrus. The not have been hunted solely for their , fea- absence of at Göbekli Tepe is almost thers and claws, but also or even exclusively certainly not an artefact of sample size (Table 1), because of their role in ritual contexts. As will be but relates to the 9th millennium cal. BC ecogeo- outlined below, some Accipitriforme birds in fact graphy of the site catchment : A landscape consis- played a role in the symbolic world of the Near ting of low, undulating grassy hills with isolated Eastern PPN. stands of trees on the plateaus and mixed gallery So far, few fish remains have been found. They forests along the water courses certainly better pertain to freshwater species, probably caught in suited the ecological demands of Ovis than of one of the tributaries of the Balikh, and brought Capra. up to the site for consumption. A typical of most PPNA and Early PPNB To answer the question propounded at the begin- archaeofaunas from the Euphrates drainage area ning of this chapter, it is beyond doubt that the and the southern is the high relative fre- bone material described above can be characteri- quency of fox bones (Helmer et al. 1998; sed as refuse derived from hunting and food pre- Horwitz et al. 1999), which is also observed at paration and consumption activities rather than Göbekli Tepe (Table 1). The majority of the fox from ritual procedures. This then leads to the remains can be attributed to the red fox, Vulpes next question, concerning the provenience of this vulpes. Based on the overall size range of the fox material — a question which hardly can be ans- bones, however, the presence of a second, smaller wered at the moment. What we know at this pre- species (Vulpes ? cana) seems possible, but une- liminary stage of research is that the people quivocal morphological evidence is lacking. responsible for the Level III faunal assemblage Occasional cut marks on bones of meat-bearing were still hunter-foragers. parts indicates that from time to time people To evaluate the approximate contribution of each prepared the meat of foxes. Also of interest is the mammalian taxon to the human diet, two para- fact that at Göbekli Tepe, post-cranial elements, meters can be considered, i.e. number of identi- in particular autopodial elements (phalanges, fied specimens (NISP) and bone weight. The (meta)carpals, (meta)tarsals), are proportionately second parameter is of particular interest, because

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 207 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

in cattle, bone weight correlates well with body ANIMALS AS ATTRIBUTES AND/OR GUARDS weight; an intra-species comparison of bone As explained above, it can be safely assumed that weights thus might inform us about the relative the T-shaped pillars represent anthropomorphic importance of a particular species as a source of beings. The animals depicted therefore could animal protein. Following this approach, it can have served as attributes and or (imaginary) be concluded that aurochs provided about 50 % guards in order to protect their “owners”. of the total meat consumed, whereas gazelle, the Admittedly, carnivores, snakes, wild boar and most frequently hunted animal, only contributed aurochs are potentially dangerous species, so their some 15 %. No doubt, subsistence activities also presence in megalithic art at PPN Göbekli Tepe included (seasonal) fowling and some occasional could be interpreted this way. On the other fishing (Tables 1; 3). As mentioned earlier, sieving hand, if the animals depicted refer to supra-natu- could not be practised with all of the filling debris, ral beings, they all possess power and are therefo- hence birds and (as well as small(er) mammals) re (virtually) able to protect the megaliths. will be underrepresented in the archaeofaunal In many instances, however, people deliberately assemblage. While it will be impossible to gauge depicted sets of species rather than single animals, the dietary importance of birds and fishes at for instance the triad aurochs, fox and crane PPNA Göbekli Tepe, the altogether low frequency (Fig. 19), or animals together with pictograms of remains from these vertebrate groups — even (Fig. 9). Considering this particularity, it is diffi- in samples that have been sieved — indicates cult to believe that animal symbolism at Göbekli their rather modest contribution as food animals. Tepe did not go beyond the level of just protec- On the present evidence it seems unlikely that ani- ting the site’s megaliths. mal husbandry was already practised, given 1) the large average size of the founder herd species (wild ANIMAL SYMBOLISM AND HUNTING RITUALS sheep, and cattle), implying that we still are As has already been mentioned, one approach to dealing with (morphologically) wild , understanding animal symbolism at Göbekli 2) the respective demographic profiles of these Tepe may lie in the assumption that a specific taxa, which show populations dominated by adult relationship between the hunter-gatherers fre- rather than by sub-adult animals, and 3) the fact quenting Göbekli Tepe and the animals depicted that remains of males rather than of females domi- did exist. These animals could have attracted a nate in the samples (Peters et al. 1999, in press). great deal of attention either because they were principal food species on which people depend upon for their survival or because people gave DISCUSSION them a specific value or status beyond their pure- ly dietary contribution for reasons we can hardly From its location and its megalithic architecture, understand or prove. This has for example been it can be safely assumed that Göbekli Tepe served the case during the Magdalenian in south-wes- as a place for the accomplishment of (different tern , where dominated the food kinds of) ritual activities. Its unique architecture spectrum of Late Palaeolithic hunters, while at and the unexpected richness and complexity of the same period horses dominated art and animal symbolism at this early stage of the Pre- stood in the centre of ritual activities (Clottes & Pottery Neolithic period necessitates a more ela- Lewis-Williams 1997; Brun 2001). borate discussion of the possible function(s) of the In the case of Göbekli Tepe one could compare areas defined by the decorated monoliths. Due to the number and range of animals depicted and the lack of comparable sites in the Anti-Taurus, those represented in the refuse of the filling. however, it is necessary to draw upon related phe- Admittedly, since the site inhabitants “recycled” nomena recorded from (pre)historic contexts in ancient settlement debris to cover the megalithic other parts of the and beyond. architecture, a straightforward correlation of the

208 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

archaeo()logical data obtained from an enclo- reflected here, which in fact finds parallels in the sure with the faunal elements depicted on mega- number of depictions on the stone pillars. liths or the objects of art found in the same However, in the case of Göbekli Tepe, dissimila- structure is not necessarily given. On the other rities between consumption waste and animal hand, three important prerequisites can be consi- representations predominate. In the bone refuse, dered relevant in this connection : Firstly, the placing of particular species in a prominent or archaeological evidence suggests that the bone less prominent position can easily be explained by refuse and the enclosures may have been broadly dietary preferences, reflecting hunting activities contemporaneous; secondly, we may assume that which are dictated by the local palaeoenviron- those people who used the enclosure and those ment. Taphonomic factors may also play a cer- who produced the refuse heaps and filled up the tain role, particularly in the lack of snake remains spaces between the pillars probably belonged to in the bone refuse. The artistic representations at the same “clan” or at least related communities Göbekli Tepe, however, seem to follow other whatever these “communities” looked like; third- conventions which have still to be revealed. ly, from a statistical point of view, the amount of In conclusion, it is difficult to believe that archi- vertebrate material is sufficiently large for a tecture and iconography at Göbekli only served reconstruction of eating habits. Therefore this for hunting rituals, although animal representa- comparison does make sense, keeping in mind a tions indicating hunting rituals may be present in (minor) bias against smaller vertebrates because the Near Eastern Neolithic, for example, the of partial recovery (see above). PPNB gazelle figurines from Umm ez-Zuweitina From the archaeofaunal record it becomes cave in Israel (Neuville 1934 : pl. 21; thought obvious that the majority of the vertebrate species originally to be Natufian, but probably PPNB), a depicted in art are also present in the bone gazelle figurine found at PPNB Basta samples, although the inverse does not apply (Hermansen 1997 : pl. 3A and fig. 1.1) and ano- (Tables 1; 3). From a quantitative point of view, ther figurine, from a gazelle hunting camp at the following discrepancy can be observed : The Dhuweila (Betts 1998 : 136, fig. 6.2) in , taxa most frequently depicted are snake, fox and where many engraved on basalt slabs wild boar, whereas the bone remains from have been found. The wall painting of Asiatic Göbekli Tepe reflect the overwhelming impor- wild ass at the seasonal hunting site of Umm tance of aurochs, goitred gazelle, and Asiatic wild Dabaghiyah may be cited here, too (Kirkbride ass in terms of meat procurement. Wild boar has 1975 : pl. 6b, 7a). Thus, based on the taxonomic a rather limited economic importance in the composition of the fauna from Göbekli Tepe human diet at Göbekli Tepe, whereas its frequen- (Tables 1; 3), only enclosure D would — in our cy in megalithic art is remarkable. Bone frag- 21st century view — be of relevance to the inha- ments of snakes are (largely) absent in the faunal bitants of the site if hunting rituals were practi- samples from Göbekli Tepe, while their promi- sed. nent position on the pillars has been mentioned repeatedly. Only for fox, a certain similarity bet- ANIMAL SYMBOLISM AND TOTEMISM ween bone refuse and artistic representation can Ritual places on hills, mountains and high places be pointed out : In the refuse, fox remains are have often been treated as cosmic projections, the counted in a rather high frequency (n = 971, origins of things being expressed through pillars, Table 1), even outnumbering remains of wild stelae, stone circles, etc. Therefore, a possible boar and reaching the amount of sheep/. approach for the interpretation of the animal This somewhat surprising result may be connec- representations on the Göbekli Tepe megaliths is ted with the exploitation of its pelt and/or the totemism. The rationale of totemism is that each utilisation of fox teeth for ornamental purposes. social group appropriates animal or plant images Additionally, a specific worship of foxes may be as their exclusive , while the significance

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 209 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

of each species derives from its place in the cogni- example, can be interpreted to represent chthonic tive structure (e.g., Layton 2000). According to creatures and would therefore often be associated Layton (1992), totemic art will tend to be with deities of the underworld (e.g., Maringer concentrated at sites which mark significant 1977). Cranes are migratory birds and will cross points in a group’s territory. Moreover, each ani- the Harran plain twice a while migrating mal species will be preferentially depicted at sites from their breeding grounds to their wintering within the territory of the group for whom it is areas (August-October) or vice versa (March- the totemic emblem. April). Together with other migratory birds, they Areas demarcated by standing stones or totem announce the turn of the seasons, an important poles may serve the performance of initiation and event for many societies of the world. While we rites of passage to adulthood. In this connection, can only guess the role Vulpes played in the sym- the pillars at Göbekli Tepe could be interpreted bolic world of the PPN, it is a fact that foxes are as poles linking the underworld with the “living” almost completely absent in the mythologies of world. Although it has been assumed that the T- post-Neolithic Mesopotamian cultures. Unlike shaped pillars may also connect the underworld species such as (wild) cattle, lion or dog (Black & with the sky or upper world (e.g., Bischoff 2002), Green 1992), the fox appears not to be associated it is doubtful whether such a “vertical hierarchy” with any deity, but its (dual) character resembles was already adopted by early PPN communities that of Meister Reineke in European fairy-tales. (e.g., Cauvin 1997 : 100). Conceivably, proto- Conversely, Vulpes played an important role in Neolithic societies still considered the world to be Neolithic communities in Southwest Asia, in ani- organised essentially horizontally, the concept of mal symbolism as well as in everyday life, e.g., as a hierarchy emerging in the course of the Neolithic commensal species (Vigne 1988; Vigne & (Cauvin ibid.). Thus, the fact that on PPNA Guilaine this vol.), and this might explain why it megaliths animals are depicted along a vertical was introduced onto Neolithic and other (e.g., Figs 8; 20) does not necessarily imply a Mediterranean islands (Vigne 1988; Helmer et al. true hierarchy, in that the more important and/or 1998; Vigne & Buitenhuis 1999). powerful an animal being, the higher its position As pointed out above, in totemism the identity of on the vertical part of a monolith. If it can be a human group will be characterised by one (or a hypothesized that the animal taxa depicted by the selection ?) of animals in the form of emblems. PPN inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe refer to forces One possible way to depict emblems may be on of origination as well as to different ethnic dis- totem poles, as has been done by Native tinctions, the criteria governing the choice of spe- American cultures inhabiting the Northwest cies as emblems will be difficult to ascertain with Coast (e.g., Halpin 1981). If this scenario applies hindsight. The choice could have been based, for to Göbekli Tepe, the presence of a series of example, on particular physical, physiological broadly contemporaneous enclosures each with a and behavioural characteristics of species, e.g., the unique iconography could imply that each space venomousness of snakes, the impressive size and demarcated by pillars was frequented by one or physical strength of the aurochs and the brown more “clans” (at different times ?). Could it be, bear, the dangerousness of lions and leopards, the then, that the occurrence of Aswad, el-Khiam, adaptability and opportunistic behaviour of Helwan, Nemrik and Nevalı Çori heads in foxes, the highly developed social organisation in the PPN debris at Göbekli Tepe is not due to carnivores, the swiftness and agility of gazelles, (long distance) trade but results from visits by the vigour of equines, the migratory behaviour of “allochthonous” human groups to perform their cranes, etc. rites in their “own” enclosure ? Provided this was If the pillars represent anthropomorphic gods, the case and that emblems had been selected however, emblems may have been chosen accor- according to the landscape and environmental ding to non-profane criteria as well. Snakes, for setting from which the human groups originated,

210 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

would it not be possible on the basis of the ani- presence of fox at Middle PPNB Shillouro- mal taxa represented at each enclosure to narrow kambos (Vigne & Buitenhuis 1999; Vigne 2000; down the geographic origin of (some of) these Vigne & Guilaine this vol.) possibly relates to the “clans” ? symbolic role of the species on the mainland At enclosure A, five taxa are depicted (Figs 12; prior to the colonisation of Cyprus by PPN 19), i.e. snake, aurochs, fox, crane and probably human groups. Be that as it may, from its wild sheep. Interestingly, pictographs of snake archaeozoological and iconographical record, and fox have been recorded on small, grooved Vulpes may have been too widespread a symbol to stones from PPNA Jerf el Ahmar on the Syrian locate its geographic origin. Euphrates (Stordeur 2000; Helmer et al. this At Enclosure C, representations of wild boar vol.), while the analysis of the vertebrate remains dominate the (Figs 13-17). This could has shown that aurochs, fox and crane were not suggest a ritual space for (a) human group(s) unimportant in the economies of Jerf el Ahmar, coming from the north, e.g., the central Tell Mureybet and Tell Cheikh Hassan (Helmer (Anti)Taurus. The major argument in favour of 1994, Helmer et al. 1998; Gourichon 2002). this hypothesis is the low frequency of Sus at Whereas these four taxa could suggest a connec- Göbekli Tepe (< 6 %) and at PPN sites located tion with the Syrian Euphrates valley, the repre- further to the south compared to the archaeofau- sentation of wild sheep does not fit well into the nas from sites to the north(east) of Göbekli Tepe, picture, since Ovis were very rare or even absent where human groups depended much more on Sus in most of northern prior to their introduc- for their survival. At Cafer Höyük, for example, tion as a domesticate (Uerpmann 1987; Peters et Sus (25 %) ranks second behind goats (43 %; al. 1999). From the beginning of the Holocene, Helmer 1988), whereas at Çayönü, are the however, wild sheep were relatively abundant in most important taxon throughout the entire PPN temperate regions such as the piedmont of the sequence, with relative frequencies varying bet- southern Taurus. Thus, while the iconography at ween 30 and 40 % (Hongo & 2000). enclosure A might point to a connection with the Besides wild boar, brown bear may also have been Syrian Euphrates valley, it is possible that a fau- depicted at enclosure C. Interestingly, evidence for nal element particular to the Anti-Taurus has this large quadruped in the PPN archaeofaunal been incorporated. One highly speculative expla- record is rare, but its remains have been found at nation could be that at an early phase of site Çayönü (Hongo et al. 2002). occupation, a group of originating from At Enclosure D, depictions of fox and snake are the Syrian Euphrates valley settled near Göbekli most common, but representations of crane, Tepe, to add, at a later stage, a faunal element of aurochs, wild boar, gazelle, hemione and a large their “new” territory to their “traditional” spec- carnivore, probably a felid (leopard, lion ?) com- trum of emblems. But, on the other hand, it is plete the inventory. This spectrum shows simila- possible as well that enclosures were frequented rities with the vertebrate fauna from Göbekli by groups of different geographic origin, each Tepe as well as with faunas from sites located fur- having their own particular emblem(s). ther north, e.g., Nevalı Çori (von den Driesch & Based on the bas-reliefs on the twin pillars, fox is Peters 2001), or along the Syrian Euphrates, e.g., the dominant emblem at enclosure B (Fig. 18). Jerf el Ahmar, Tell Mureybet, As stated, the high relative frequency of its and Tell Cheikh Hassan (Helmer 1994; Legge remains compared to other carnivores at Göbekli 1996; Helmer et al. 1998; Gourichon 2002). Tepe and in most of the PPNA/Early PPNB fau- While the combination of gazelle and Asiatic nal assemblages (e.g., Vigne 1988; Helmer 1994; wild ass on P21 (Fig. 21) is indicative for dry, Helmer et al. 1998; Peters et al. 1999) under- open landscapes, other species such as aurochs, scores the significance of this taxon in the spiritual wild boar and cranes are partial to moist, riparian world of the PPN northern Fertile Crescent. The . Such a mixture of biotopes is found at

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 211 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

the ecotone of steppe and river valley vegetation, Note 2) admits that more samples are needed to and this must have been the case along most explore consistency between different cases of water courses in both the Euphrates and totemic, shamanic and secular , it is of drainage regions. course tempting to apply his preliminary conclu- sions to the corpus of animal representations ANIMAL SYMBOLISM AND SHAMANISM found at Göbekli Tepe. Unfortunately, only Based on a comparative survey of rock art, intra-site evaluation was possible due to the lack Layton (2000 : 179 ff.) hypothesized that tote- of contemporaneous sites with comparable mega- mic, shamanic and secular rock art offer different lithic art. From Table 2, the high frequency of ways of using motifs drawn from the vocabulary snake, wild boar and fox becomes obvious. These of a cultural tradition. They therefore show diffe- species may therefore have served as vehicles for rent but characteristic distributions within and spiritual encounters. If this applies, it can be between sites. Intra- and inter-site comparison of concluded that the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe the motifs, in particular their frequencies, would witnessed shamanic rituals. hence be useful to differentiate between the three In Late Palaeolithic rock art in Europe, therioke- categories. It should be stressed, however, that at phalic beings have been considered to impersona- a single location, totemic, shamanic and secular te shamans. The same applies to anthropo(zoo)- art are not necessarily mutually exclusive. morphic figurines in archaeological contexts, e.g., According to Layton, inter-site comparison sug- the ivory sculpture “Der Löwenmensch” from gests that the species favoured in shamanism will Palaeolithic Hohlenstein-Stadel (Lone valley, be depicted throughout the community’s area southwest Germany; Hahn 1994). Interestingly, because they are then available to people in many anthropozoomorphs, i.e. creatures with a human local groups. A similar distribution can be postu- body and the head of an animal, e.g., of a lion lated for secular rock art : the species hunted and (Hohlenstein-Stadel), a (Trois Frères, gathered during everyday foraging activities will Chauvet) or an ibex (Gabillou), are present at be depicted with equal frequency at all sites. This numerous sites, while the combination of an ani- distribution will be in contrast with that observed mal body with a human head, e.g., a sphinx or a in the case of totemism, where (each) motif(s) centaur, seems to be lacking almost completely in will be concentrated at a few sites within the ter- . Did humans have the ability to ritory. Intra-site comparison, on the other hand, turn into animals (and back), while animals, as a revealed that totemic art is characterised by the rule, could not become humans ? presence of a large number of species, each occur- If the theriokephalic beings in Palaeolithic rock ring with about the same frequency, because each art impersonate shamans, it is probable that these motif serves as the emblem of one clan among paintings were made by the shamans themselves, many. A high species diversity and approximately simply because they would possess the cultural equal frequencies will also characterise secular art, background necessary to produce this kind of art, whereas in shamanic art, there should be a predo- the intention of which is not to show everyday minance of few animal taxa. The latter assump- life but some supra-natural sphere. The scenes tion is based on ethnographic evidence from depicted might arise from the shaman’s own shamanistic cultures, in which some species are experiences during trance-induced spiritual often particularly charged with power, e.g., encounters. In this state, he acts in a transcenden- among the ! Kung (Marshall 1969). tal sphere and will be able to provide answers to The shamanic explanation for Bushmen rock art questions of members of his community. Clottes in southern was quite successfully applied and Louis-Williams (1997, 1998) argue that the to Palaeolithic cave paintings of the Franco- experience of trance and its mental outcome are Cantabrian region (Clottes & Lewis-Williams similar in all Homo sapiens. Differences exist only 1997, 1998). And although Layton (2002 : 184, at the level of what can be expected. If related for

212 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

example to hunting, the animal species involved , a world characterised by a megalithic will differ according to the region, e.g., a whale or architecture (the preliminary stage of temples) a seal for an Eskimo, an or a giraffe for and a stratified society with powerful rulers. a Bushman, etc. Conceivably, when colours, In conclusion, whether shamanic rituals were brushes etc. are prepared in advance, rock pain- performed at the site or whether the decorated tings can be made in a comparably short time, for T-shaped pillars represented shamans with their example after trance dancing. The position of the attributes cannot be unequivocally answered for drawing on the rock face, moreover, is not casual, the moment. But the fact that the foundations of but implies a situation resembling that in “Open the central twin pillars did not insure good stabili- sesame !” ty would possibly exclude mass gatherings, in par- Given the anthropomorphic nature of the T-sha- ticular large groups of humans moving or dancing. ped pillars at Göbekli Tepe and the fact that these abstract monoliths bear representations of ANIMAL SYMBOLISM AND FUNERAL CUSTOMS particular (sets of) animal species, it is tempting There is one animal which in the recent and dis- to interpret these megaliths as three-dimensional tant past has quite often been associated with representations of shamans. However, many of funeral rites : the vulture (Solecki 1977; Solecki the T-shaped pillars hitherto excavated show no & McGovern 1980; Schüz & König 1983). In animal decorations at all, and this seems contra- , for example, people will bring the dictory to the previous assumption. Moreover, deceased to specific places in the mountains, compared to rock paintings, the fabrication of where the bodies are laid out for the vultures these huge monoliths did not take a few hours, (Hedin 1909; Schäfer 1938; Schüz & König but weeks, if not months. It is therefore hardly 1983). To 20th century western visitors in Tibet, realistic to believe that this task was carried out the vultures even seemed to be conditioned to by a few shamans who, together with their com- approach in response to the swinging of a sling by munities, visited the site occasionally to perform the professional body dissectors (ragyapas). The specific rituals. To carve, rub down, transport, birds (mainly Himalayan griffons) apparently decorate, and erect megaliths up to 7 m high (!) waited in a “disciplined fashion” until “called” by is hard work, so it is highly probable that, besides the swinging sling or by some recognisable sound a person in (a shaman ?), a considerable (Hedin 1909; Taring 1972). number of skilled labourers participated to At Neolithic Çatal Hüyük, vultures may have accomplish this task. These people would have played a similar role, considering the wall pain- depended on the (local) hunter-gatherer tings on which they are depicted encircling head- community for their basic requirements (food, less human bodies (Mellaart 1967). Contrary to , shelter…). Seen from this perspective, Mellaart (1967), however, the figure swinging a (pre)conditions in the PPN Anti-Taurus must whip on a Çatal Hüyük wall decoration (VIII 8) have differed entirely from those prevailing in may well represent somebody attracting the birds Upper Palaeolithic Europe : the monumental art rather then warding them off (Schüz & König at Göbekli Tepe does not represent the outcome 1983). The importance of vultures at Neolithic of an act of few individuals, but of activities Çatal Hüyük is also illustrated by the fact that involving an entire community, large enough and some relief decorations on the walls contained organised in an hierarchical way so as to be able vulture . to provide the necessary logistics for such a com- It is beyond doubt that vultures also played a role plex undertaking. In this connection, it is not in the symbolic world of the Neolithic inhabi- improbable that the shamans at Göbekli Tepe (if tants of the upper Euphrates and Tigris basin in present) were on the verge of becoming true the millennia preceding site occupation at Çatal priests, and that the ancient rituals had already Hüyük. Illustrations of this can be found in the undergone changes as a result of the dawn of a limestone sculptures of vulture-like birds at

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 213 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

Nevalı Çori (Hauptmann & Schmidt 2001 : figs are completely absent from the wall paintings at 305-307), the pictographs on engraved stones Çatal Hüyük, although a flint handle made from Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2000; Helmer et al. of bone and carved in the shape of a snake has this vol.) and the small stone figurines excavated been found (Mellaart 2003 : 126, fig. 88; 167, at Nemrik (Aurenche & Kozlowski 2000) and fig. 54). The flint is bifacially pressure-fla- Jerf el Ahmar (Gourichon 2002). It is debatable ked. Obviously this knife was not made for daily whether the bone remains of vultures which have use. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Upper been found in the archaeofaunas from Gürcütepe Euphrates basin, however, the snake motif (von den Driesch & Peters 2001) and Jerf el- appears to have been widespread. This is illustra- Ahmar (Gourichon 2002), should also be seen in ted by findings from PPNA Jerf el Ahmar such a context. (Cauvin 1997; Stordeur 1999; Helmer et al. this With respect to Göbekli Tepe, evidence for vul- vol.) and Tel Qaramel (Mazurowski & Jamous tures is restricted to a few isolated bones (Table 3) 2001 : fig. 8), Early-Middle PPNB Nevalı Çori and a beautifully carved stone figurine (Fig. 23). (Hauptmann 1993, 1999) and Körtik Tepe. At Since depictions of vultures are lacking in the Nevalı Çori, for example, a limestone sculpture megalithic art of Göbekli Tepe, one could tenta- of a human head decorated with a snake tively conclude that the site did not serve funeral (Hauptmann 1999 : fig. 10) was found in the customs and practises, unless a plausible explana- wall of a ritual building. At Körtik Tepe, several tion can be offered as to why people decided not stone vessels decorated with snake motifs were to represent these birds. Provided that the animal present among the (Özkaya & San taxa depicted on the T-shaped pillars indeed had 2003 : fig. 3). a totemic and/or shamanic meaning (at least in a The foregoing observations thus reinforce the broad sense), it would help to explain why vul- assumption of Göbekli Tepe being a place for tures were excluded as emblems : their association rituals related to the cult of the deceased, a view with death (and the upper world ?) would have which is strengthened by two additional argu- been in conflict with the very nature of the ments. Firstly, monumentality usually demons- anthropomorphic beings, whose primary func- trates power and monumental buildings for tion could have been to support and guide mem- the deceased are a widespread phenomenon in bers of the community in life (or from life to (pre)history; secondly, the symbols recorded death?). from the demarcated spaces at Göbekli Tepe In Zoroastrian funeral rites, the deceased will be appear exclusively masculine, the animals (Figs 13; deposited in so-called “dakhmas”. These buildings 15; 19; 21) as well as the humans (Fig. 24A, B). — named “towers of silence” by western visitors Female representations are lacking, and especially — are frequented by birds feeding on carrion the absence of small figurines known from almost (e.g., Gabriel 1971; Huff 1988). In , dakhmas any other Neolithic settlement in the Near East were in use until the 20th century, and in some seems significant. If such female depictions are regions of they still serve this purpose. From linked to fertility and life in the broadest sense, 20th century observations in these countries we the fact that they are missing at Göbekli Tepe know that dakhmas were not only frequented by could imply that rituals related to the cult of the vultures but also by other bird species, in particu- dead might present the key to our understanding lar corvine birds (crows and ravens). Interestingly, of the site. remains of corvine birds make up more than one third of the bird fauna at Göbekli Tepe, yet mem- bers of the crow family are lacking in the icono- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS graphy of the site, as is the case with vultures. Between the iconographies of Çatal Hüyük and The excavations at Göbekli Tepe have revealed a Göbekli Tepe there is another difference : snakes hitherto unparalleled PPNA site with a rich

214 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

megalithic architecture. The manpower and displayed. Representations of animals are some- craftsmanship necessary for its construction and times accompanied by symbols and/or picto- maintenance implies division of labour and grams. involved a considerable number of skilled people. Because sites with similar finds are lacking, sym- It also implies a large, sedentary, well-organised bolism in Late Quaternary contexts in other parts hierarchical community, willing to invest in the of the world were drawn upon to evaluate the materialization of its complex immaterial world animal representations encountered at Göbekli over many generations and at a considerable cost Tepe. Discussion centred on the possible role of in energy. It is therefore beyond doubt that the the faunal elements depicted, i.e. whether they necessity to satisfy and secure the energy would represent 1) guards and/or attributes of demands of the people living in the vicinity of the anthropomorphic beings, 2) favourite game Göbekli Tepe and similar large PPNA communi- species, 3) totemic emblems, selected and/or ties in the Anti-Taurus and in the upper combined according to patterns which are still far Euphrates basin led to numerous innovations and from being understood, 4) vehicles for spiritual adjustments to the existing subsistence patterns; encounters or 5) animals associated with mortua- these changes, in the course of the PPNB, led to ry practices. Correspondingly there is the issue of the appearance of fully domesticated plants and whether the areas demarcated by the decorated animals and the emergence of agro-pastoralism pillars were intended for hunting rituals, initia- (Peters et al. 1999, in press). tion and passage rites, spiritual encounters or In this contribution, the focus has been on the funeral practices, or whether the enclosures wit- megalithic art at PPNA Göbekli Tepe, in particu- nessed a multitude of distinct rituals and gathe- lar the numerous representations of animals on rings involving different (sets of) species. For the the T-shaped pillars. The latter measure on avera- moment, the possibilities mentioned above are ge 3.5 to 5 m and have been arranged in such a hypothetical, although differences in taxonomic way as to form round or oval enclosures, with composition and relative frequencies between the two freestanding pillars in the centre. The overall archaeofaunal and iconographical record contra- shape of the pillars appears standardized, and any dict the assumption that Göbekli Tepe principal- indication of sex is lacking. Some of these mono- ly served hunting rituals. liths exhibit arms and hands in bas-relief, sugges- In this contribution, an attempt has been made ting that they represent anthropomorphic beings. to trace the rationale behind the animal depic- It is not clear, however, what kind of beings these tions on the T-shaped pillars. But any interpreta- standing stones impersonate : do they represent tion of the function of these megaliths will anthropomorphic gods, shamans, ancestors, encounter similar difficulties as is the case with stone spirits or perhaps even demons ? explanations offered for , masseboth, Obviously the animals on the T-shaped pillars obelisks and other standing stones found else- must have been visible to the people that were where in Asia and Europe (cf. compilation by allowed to enter the space. Up to now, at least ten Worschech 2002). A good illustration of this are vertebrate taxa have been recognised (Table 2). the so-called Balbals, standing stones placed Because of the fact that only part of the site has so around medieval graves in . Fortunately, far been excavated, their number may increase. historical sources provide an explanation for their Therefore, the present view of a symbolic world meaning : “I killed their heroic warriors and dominated by few taxa, in particular snake, fox made balbals of them […]” and “I turned the and wild boar, may be biased, all the more becau- Kirghiz Khan into a balbal […]” (Orkun 1936- se numerous other representations, e.g., animal 41; fide Belli 2003 : 126). Balbals thus imperso- sculptures and animal depictions on limestone nate warriors who were killed, then positioned slabs (> 40), have been excluded from the statis- around the grave and hence “chained” to their tics. On the pillars, only male animals have been master to serve him eternally. However, in the

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 215 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

absence of any written evidence and in view of BRUN P. 2001. — Le cheval, symbole de pouvoir dans our limited knowledge of the role animals played l’Europe préhistorique. Catalogue d’exposition, expo- sition 31.1-12.11.2001. APRAIF, musée de in the symbolic world of the Pre-Pottery Préhistoire d’Île de , Nemours. Neolithic, in particular the logic and metaphysics CAUVIN J. 1977. — Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971- governing the choice and combination of animal 1974) et leur signification pour les origines de la taxa, the issue of what purpose the enclosures sédentarisation au Proche-Orient. Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 44 : 19-47. with their unique monumental art at PPNA CAUVIN J. 1997. — Naissance des divinités. Naissance Göbekli Tepe really served will take much more de l’agriculture. Nouvelle édition. C.N.R.S., Paris. time to be properly answered. CLASON A.T. 1989-90. — The Bouqras bird frieze. Anatolica 16 : 209-211. CLASON A.T. 1999. — The Leopard ( ?) of Bouqras, south-east Syria, in BECKER C., MANHART H., Acknowledgements PETERS J. & SCHIBLER J. (eds), Historia animalium We thank Mr. Eyüp Bucak, director of the ex ossibus. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf. : 133-140. Museum of Șanlıurfa, for his kind cooperation. CLOTTES J. & LEWIS-WILLIAMS D. 1997. — We are grateful to ArchaeNova e.V. (Heidelberg) Schamanen. Trance und Magie in der Höhlenkunst for their support of the excavations. C. Becker der Steinzeit. Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen. (Berlin) and J.-D. Vigne (Paris) made valuable CLOTTES J. & LEWIS-WILLIAMS D. 1998. — Shamanism and Upper Palaeolithic art : a response comments on an earlier draft of this paper. to Bahn. Rock Art Research 15 : 46-50. DRIESCH A. VON DEN &PETERS J. 2001. — Früheste Haustierhaltung in der Südosttürkei, in BOEHMER R.M. & MARAN J. (eds), Lux orientis. Archäologie REFERENCES zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Leidorf, AURENCHE O. & KOZLOWSKI S.K. 2000. — Rahden/Westf. : 113-120. Continuité, convergences, influences et innovations GABRIEL A. 1971. — Religionsgeographie von Persien. dans la préhistoire récente de Mésopotamie, in Kommissionsverlag Brüder Hollinek, Wien. GUILAINE J. (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde. GOURICHON L. 2002. — Bird remains from Jerf el Naissances des . Éditions Errance, Paris : Ahmar, a PPNA site in northern Syria, with special 83-95. reference to the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), in BAR-YOSEF O. 2000. — The context of animal domes- BUITENHUIS H., CHOYKE A.M., MASHKOUR M. & tication in Southwestern Asia, in MASHKOUR M., AL-SHYIAB A.H. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near CHOYKE A.M., BUITENHUIS H. & POPLIN F. (eds), East V. ARC-Publicatie 62, Groningen : 138-152. Archaeozoology of the Near East 4A. ARC-Publicatie HAHN J. 1994. — Menschtier- und Phantasiewesen, 32, Groningen : 185-195. in ULMER MUSEUM (ed.), Der Löwenmensch. — BEILE-BOHN M., GERBER C., MORSCH M. & Tier und Mensch in der Kunst der Eiszeit. Thorbecke SCHMIDT K. 1998. — Neolithische Forschungen in Verlag, Sigmaringen : 101-115. Obermesopotamien. Gürcütepe und Göbekli Tepe. HALPIN M. 1981. — Totem Poles : an Illustrated Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48 : 5-78. Guide. University of British Columbia Press, BELLI O. 2003. — Kırgızistan’da ta balbal ve insan Vancouver. biçimli heykeler — Stone balbals and statues in HAUPTMANN H. 1993. — Ein Kultgebäude in Nevalı human form in Kirghizistan. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Çori, in FRANGIPANE M., HAUPTMANN H., Yayınları, Istanbul. LIVERANI M., MATTHIAE P. & MELLINK M. (eds), BETTS A. 1998. — The Harra and the Hamad. Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Excavations and surveys in Eastern Jordan 1. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Archaeological Monographs 9, Sheffield. Palmieri Dedicata. Università di Roma “La BISCHOFF D. 2002. — Symbolic worlds of Central Sapienza”, Roma : 37-69. and Southeast Anatolia in the Neolithic, in GÉRARD HAUPTMANN H. 1999. — The Urfa region, in F. & L. THISSEN (eds), The Neolithic of Central ÖZDOGAN˘ M. & BASGELEN N. (eds), Neolithic in Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations Turkey. 2 vols. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, during the 9th — 6th Millennia cal. BC. Ege Istanbul : vol. 1 : 65-86; vol. 2 : 39-55. Yayınları, Istanbul : 237-251. HAUPTMANN H. 2002. — Upper in its BLACK J. & GREEN A. 1992. — Gods, demons and sym- regional context during the Early Neolithic, in bols of Ancient Mesopotamia. Press : GÉRARD F. & THISSEN L. (eds), The Neolithic of London. Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external

216 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) Animals in the symbolic world of PPN Göbekli Tepe (Turkey)

relations during the 9th-6th Millennia cal. BC. LAYTON R. 1992. — Australian rock art : a new synthe- Yayınları, Istanbul : 263-271. sis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. HAUPTMANN H. & SCHMIDT K. 2001. — Frühe LAYTON R. 2000. — Shamanism, totemism and rock Tempel — frühe Götter?, in DEUTSCHES art : Les Chamanes de la Préhistoire in the context of ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT (ed.), Archäologische rock art research. Cambridge Archaeological Journal Entdeckungen. Die Forschungen des Deutschen 10 : 169-186. Archäologischen Instituts im 20. Jahrhundert. Zaberns LEGGE A.J. 1996. — The beginning of caprine domes- Bildbände zur Archäologie, Mainz : 258-266. tication in Southwest Asia, in HARRIS D.R. (ed.), HEDIN S. 1909. — Transhimalaya I. Brockhaus, The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism Leipzig. in Eurasia. University College London, London : HELMER D. 1988. — Les animaux de Çafer et des sites 238-262. préceramiques du sud-est de la Turquie : essai de MARINGER J. 1977. — Die Schlange in Kunst und synthèse. Anatolica 15 : 37-48. Kult der vorgeschichtlichen Menschen. Anthropos HELMER D. 1994. — La des animaux 72 : 881-920. d’embouche dans le Levant Nord (Syrie du Nord et MARSHALL L. 1969. — The medicine dance of the ! Sinjar), du milieu du 9e millénaire BP à la fin du Kung bushmen. Africa 39 : 347-381. 7e millénaire BP. Nouvelles données d’après les MAZUROWSKI R. & JAMOUS B. 2001. — Tel Qaramel. fouilles récentes. Anthropozoologica 20 : 41-54. Excavations 2000. Polish Archaeology in the HELMER D., ROITEL V., SAÑA SEGUI M. & WILLCOX Mediterranean. Reports 2000 : 327-341. G. 1998. — Interprétations environnementales des MELLAART J. 1967. — Çatal Hüyük. A Neolithic town données archéozoologiques et archéobotaniques en in Anatolia. Wheeler, London. Syrie du nord de 16000 BP à 7000 BP, et les débuts MELLAART J. 2003. — Çatalhöyük. Anadolu’da bir de la domestication des plantes et des animaux, in : neolitik . Yapı Kredi yayınları, Istanbul. FORTIN M. & AURENCHE O. (eds), Espace naturel, NEUVILLE R. 1934. — La préhistoire de Palestine. espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av Revue biblique 43 : 237-259. J.-C. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 28, Bulletin ÖZDOGAN˘ M. & ÖZDOGAN˘ A. 1998. — Buildings of 33. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, cult and the cult of buildings, in ARSEBÜK G., Québec : 9-33. MELLINK M.J. & SCHIRMER W. (eds), Light on top HERMANSEN B.D. 1997. — Art and ritual behaviour of the Black Hill. Studies presented to Halet Çambel. in Neolithic Basta, in GEBEL H.G., KAFAFI Z. & Yayınları, Istanbul : 581-601. ROLLEFSON G.O. (eds), The of Jordan II. ÖZKAYA V. & SAN O. 2003. — Körtik Tepe 2001 Perspectives from 1997. Studies in early Near Eastern kazısı, Ankara. Kazı sonuçları toplantısı 24 (2) : 423- production, subsistence, and environment 4. Ex ori- 436. ente, Berlin : 333-343. PETERS J., HELMER D., DRIESCH A. VON DEN and HONGO H. & MEADOW R.H. 2000. — Faunal SAÑA SEGUI M. 1999. — Early animal husbandry in remains from Prepottery Neolithic levels at the Northern Levant. Paléorient 25 (2) : 27-48. Çayönü, Southeastern Turkey : a preliminary report PETERS J., DRIESCH A. VON DEN &HELMER D. in focusing on pigs (Sus sp.), in MASHKOUR M., press. — The Upper Euphrates-Tigris Basin : CHOYKE A.M., BUITENHUIS H. & POPLIN F. (eds), Cradle of agro-pastoralism ?, in VIGNE J.-D., Archaeozoology of the Near East 4A. Groningen : HELMER D. & PETERS J. (eds), New archaeozoolog- ARC-Publicatie 32 : 121-139. ical methods for the study of the first steps of HONGO H., MEADOW R.H., ÖKSUZ B. & ILGEZDI G. domestication. Oxford : Oxbow Books. 2002. — The process of domestication in PUSTOVOYTOV K. 2002. — 14C dating of pedogenic Prepottery Neolithic Çayönü, southeastern Turkey, carbonate coatings on wall stones at Göbekli Tepe, in BUITENHUIS H., CHOYKE A.M., MASHKOUR M. Southeastern Turkey. Neo-Lithics 2 (02) : 3-4. & AL-SHYIAB A.H. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near PUSTOVOYTOV K. 2003. — Erratum. Neo-Lithics 1 East V. ARC-Publicatie 62, Groningen : 153-165. (03) : 37. HORWITZ L.K., TCHERNOV E., DUCOS P., BECKER C., ROSENBERG M., NESBITT M.R., REDDING R.W. & DRIESCH A. VON DEN, MARTIN L. & GARRARD A. STRASSER T.F. 1995. — Hallan Çemi Tepesi : 1999. — Animal domestication in the Southern Some preliminary observations concerning early Levant. Paléorient 25 (2) : 63-80. Neolithic subsistence behaviors in Eastern Anatolia. HUFF D. 1988. — Zum Problem zoroastrischer Anatolica 21 : 1-12. Grabanlagen in Fars. Archäologische Mitteilungen RUSSELL N. & MCGOWAN K.J. 2003. — Dance of the aus Iran 21 : 145-179. Cranes : Crane symbolism at Çatalhöyük and KIRKBRIDE D. 1975 — Umm Dabaghiyah 1974 : A beyond. Antiquity 77 : 445-455. fourth preliminary report. Iraq 37 : 3-10. SAÑA SEGUI M. 1999. — Arqueología de la domesti- KROMER B. & SCHMIDT K. 1998. — Two radiocar- caión animal. La gestión de los recursos animales en bon dates from Göbekli Tepe, South Eastern Tell Halula (Valle del Éufrates-Siria) del 8.800 al Turkey. Neo-Lithics 3 (98) : 8-9. 7.000 BP. Treballs d’Arqueologia del Pròxim

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1) 217 Peters J. & Schmidt K.

Orient 1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, SOLECKI R.L. & MCGOVERN T.H. 1980. — Predatory Barcelona. birds and prehistoric man, in DIAMOND S. (ed.), SCHÄFER E. 1938. — Ornithologische Forschungser- Theory and practice : essays presented to Gene gebnisse zweier Forschungsreisen nach Tibet. Weltfish. Mouton, Paris : 79-95. Journal für Ornithologie 86 : 156-166. STORDEUR D. 1999. — Organisation de l’espace con- SCHMIDT K. 1995. — Investigations in the Upper struit et organisation sociale dans le Néolithique de Mesopotamian Early Neolithic : Göbekli Tepe and Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, Xe-IXe millénaire av. J.-C.), in Gürcütepe. Neo-Lithics 2 (95) : 9-10. BRAEMER F., CLEUZIOU S. & COUDART A. (eds), e SCHMIDT K. 1998a. — Frühneolithische Tempel. Ein et société. XIX Rencontres Internationales Forschungsbericht zum präkeramischen Neolithi- d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes. Éditions kum Obermesopotamiens. Mitteilungen der APDCA, Juan-les-Pins : 131-149. Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 130 : 17-46. STORDEUR D. 2000. — Jerf el Ahmar et l’émergence UILAINE SCHMIDT K. 1998b. — Das Nevalıçorien. Materielle du Néolithique au Proche Orient, in G J. Kultur und rituelle Welt einer obermesopotamischen (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde. Naissances des agri- Fazies des akeramischen Neolithikums. Universität cultures. Éditions Errance, Paris : 33-60. Heidelberg, Unpublished Habilitation thesis. TARING R.D. 1972. — Eine Tochter Tibets. Leben im Land der vertriebenen Götter. Marion von Schröder, SCHMIDT K. 1999. — Frühe Tier- und Menschenbilder vom Göbekli Tepe. Istanbuler Hamburg; Düsseldorf. Mitteilungen 49 : 5-21. UERPMANN H.-P. 1987. — The ancient distribution of ungulate mammals in the Middle East. Beihefte zum SCHMIDT K. 2000. — “Zuerst kam der Tempel, dann Tübinger des Vorderen Orients, Reihe A die Stadt” . Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Grabungen (Naturwissenschaften) 27. Dr. Ludwig Reichert : am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe 1995-1999. Wiesbaden. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50 : 5-41. VIGNE J.-D. 1988. — Biogéographie insulaire et SCHMIDT K. 2001. — Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern anthropozoologie des sociétés néolithiques méditer- Turkey. A preliminary report on the 1995-1999 ranéennes : hérisson, renard et micromammifères. excavations. Paléorient 26/1 : 45-54. Anthropozoologica 8 : 31-52. SCHMIDT K. 2003. — “Kraniche am See”. Bilder und VIGNE J.-D. 2000. — Les débuts néolithiques de l’éle- Zeichen vom frühneolithischen Göbekli Tepe vage des ongulés au Proche-Orient et en Méditer- (Südosttürkei), in SEIPEL W. (ed.), Der Turmbau zu ranée : acquis récents et questions, in GUILAINE J. Babel. Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift. (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde. Naissances des agri- Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums cultures. Éditions Errance, Paris : 143-168. Wien für die Europäische Kulturhauptstadt Graz VIGNE J.-D. & BUITENHUIS H. 1999. — Les premiers 2003, Band IIIA : 23-29. pas de la domestication animale à l’Ouest de SCHMIDT K. and HAUPTMANN H. 2003. — Göbekli l’Euphrate : Chypre et l’Anatolie centrale. Paléorient Tepe et Nevali Cori. Dossiers d’Archéologie 281 : 60- 25/2 : 49-62. 67. WORSCHECH U. 2002. — Cromlechs, und SCHÜZ E. & KÖNIG C. 1983. — Old vultures and Menhire. Vergleichende Studien zu vor- und früh- man, in WILBUR S.R. & JACKSON J.A. (eds), Vulture geschichtlichen Grabanlagen in Jordanien. Beiträge Biology and Management. University of zur Erforschung der antiken Moabitis ( el-Kerak) Press, Berkeley : 461-469. 2. Lang – Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, SOLECKI R.L. 1977. — Predatory bird rituals at Zawi Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; Bruxelles; New Chemi Shanidar. Sumer 33 : 42-47. York; Oxford; Wien.

Submitted on 24 August 2003; Accepted on 16 December 2003.

218 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2004 • 39 (1)